@asteroidbook345 Yeah speaking of which, just how do you upload edited photo (like that B&V plane on the frontpage)?

@asteroidbook345 It was my first plane with fuselage number painted on the landing gear door... that's why I chose a gear down picture... perhaps that wasn't wise.

@asteroidbook345 The problem is more likely "clickbaitness" i.e. how much it lures people to even click it.
Detail belongs to AFTER the click, as even the largest details cannot be observed from thumbnail.
Which is why I originally asked about an alternative name for this aircraft because Drawing Number attracts no one.
But it seems that the American/fame bias in the SP community is stronger than my estimation... perhaps I need to make more "known" models, that's why there was this thread.

@MrSilverWolf Yes I know that, so I said in an earlier reply "everyone needs to be reminded once in a while that they build for themselves, not anyone else" (or something like that).
Thanks for your reply anyway.

Well I say this on every post regarding this “only X amount of upvotes”
The game isn’t meant for building stuff solely for up votes, it’s for having fun building those planes not for random meaningless internet points
So did you have fun building you build? If so then that’s all that matters

It has 23 now

@SodiumChloride Sincerely speaking I think all I did wrong in Krokodilwachter is that I chose a wrong plane to work on. It's not just about popularity, the original design also makes it prone to "look" simple.

And still by observing other peoples builds I do think American planes have an edge on attracting eyeballs.
And I do have a good list of US planes to make. I'm just too lazy to make US version of gauges (because the zero on top instead of on bottom & uses imperial units rather than metric, which means I have to re-make /adjust all my instruments)
I intend on improving the following:
1. more details (false wing/fuselage segregation like that P1099B on frontpage), landing gear rods etc.
2. better advertisement. Perhaps I can have a release forum post instead of repeated teaser posts.
3. More simple, straight-to-the-point titles.
4. Improved livery (bigger area of paint jobs, continue to improve camouflage, etc)
5. Choose something more "sensational". I'm planning on making an anime plane with very "unique" livery next.

@SodiumChloride Read my last comment, and allow me to get this topic back to where it belongs:
TL:DR version:
Although I used that P-38 as a reference, what actually annoys me is that my Fw got same number of upvotes as some of my earliest builds.

At the time of this thread was created, that FW plane in question had the same upvote as this piece of crap, which was made by me when I only had one month experience.

That Reference P-38 has no interior, no paint job, but it does have better curves because of sandwich wings and calculus fuselage.
But there has to be other reason and that's where aircraft choice comes up. There seems to be a golden sweet spot between overly popular models and overly niche models, I just don't know where.

And actually, I went back to see my Ju 288G-2. The fuselage has only 6 sections compared to 5 of this Focke Wulf.
It seems that it boils down to not how many parts you used for fuselage, but what cross section it is designed with. If the design is entirely cylindrical it will look easier to make. Not to mention the unique intake design eliminated the possibility to make a smooth, cone-shaped nose.

And finally, let me remind each of you:
I wasn't even comparing that build with those part-inflated builds. I was comparing them with my own builds. The very same builds with the 2-section wings you said would cause me to be continuously ignored. They did not.

Let me remind you that at the time of this OP, this plane had the same upvote number from the Old P 1102Z I made one month or so into this game, which only featured 110 parts. THAT's what I was complaining about.
I don't mind not getting attention against those sandwich wings, I mind getting less attention than my old builds who doen't even have any custom wings whatsoever.

@SodiumChloride I consider my self discussing with you on equal terms. If you think you are a teacher, a superior, then this conversation cannot continue.

@SodiumChloride "Calculus building" = use many small parts to approximate a pretty curve.
For example that wingtip, it uses 9 fuselage parts. There are also other people making cross sections by cross sections for the fuselage and use tiny bits of fuselage parts to "fill the gap" between each cross sections. This will inflate fuselage part count by tens if not hundreds.

@SodiumChloride Well... fine. At least I probably will try "sandwich wings" one more time... I actually used that Wing Tutorial once and it didn't quite get the effect I want easily...

Calculus building? Lol no one uses any sort of maths to build panelled curves, we all do it by eye. I hate referencing myself, but you can see my panelling get better over time if you compare my old builds with my new ones. If you do not try it, you’ll never get there. You don’t just get there magically. However, if you believe in what your doing now, that’s fine and continue to do as such, but don’t complain when it doesn’t get the attention you want it to. @vcharng

@CoolPeach Well then we will not reach conclusion. I actually think 2 section wings look better than 3 section wings except for the wingtip part (and that part has to be solved with calculus building which I haven't mastered). It approximates the wing curve better and use less parts. And mind you, it does not require less labor.

The only problem for 2 section wings are that the control surfaces will be too thick, which is sorta solved in this build (though it instead becomes too thin). Next time I'll try the wedge-shaped trailing edge from 3-section wings and see how it works.

@SodiumChloride Yeah... "calculus building".... that's probably the next big leap I have to make.
Right now my wingtips and cockpits are limited to the fact that I don't have the time and patience to "plank" the whole cockpit section into what would've been done by a subtracted part, and then make a no-glass canopy with only the frames. (I also dislike the no-glass cockpit exterior)
I just can't make that many small parts to approximate a curve ("calculus")...
For example, one of Thecatbaron's wingtips have 9 approximated parts.
I understand that this is the difference between me and those Platinum builders but I just can't master that yet...

And that means I need to make my cockpit camera submerged into everything I don't want to be seen from the inside (that's why the canopy glass has to be a single part, or the pilot's vision will be blocked by the front section, which means I can't make hard-silhouette cockpits like Fw 190 or Me 262)

Hmm, 3 section wings don’t take as many parts as you think, ur picking horrible examples. Look at recent builds from good players, then you’ll understand the construction and the simplicity yet effectiveness of building wings that way. Wings only get complex when you want to do slotted flaps, slats or Lg housing, anything else is relatively easy. 1 wing section can take merely 5 parts, and the entire pair of wings no more than 50. If you insist on 2 section wings, be prepared to deal with this lack of attention. @vcharng

@CoolPeach 2-section wings usually takes:
1 wing base
2-3 trailing edge
2 actuator for control surfaces
1 wingtip

3-section wings usually takes 20- 50 visible parts...
I've downloaded a Me P-1102 once and oh my god that wing was like a sandwich. It has at least 3 layers of fuselage parts for each section, each edge.

Not to mention that P-51D. you can't destroy its wings without cannon part + explosive rounds because each part was like 5cmx5cm...

As for landing gears I'll figure out a way.
In my earlier builds I learned not to have too many parts from fuselage to wheel because the physics will start to act strange (wheel will bounce on the ground).
I also learned not to use resizable wheel for turning wheel because it will turn poorly on the ground (side slip, 100% sideway traction doesn't help, and too high traction will also screw up the physics)

I will, however, make the LGs more detailed next time, at least by adding a few more cosmetic parts. I know a landing gear rod that goes all the way looks dumb.

@SodiumChloride I just don't want to feel like I'm "bribing" by upvoting others with an expectation that they will do the same to me. Especially after reading that in the official rules.
But, ok ,fine, I'll upvote more, and try to not think of it that way.

You talk about part inflation, but this build looks like a 300 part build on the surface. Smooth wings do not consume parts like you may think they do, it’s a matter of being smart with them. A cockpit however will, but that’s the price you pay. When I say proper cockpit I mean without the simulated glass, just doing the frames and the outline of the bubble with a high gloss thin piece and leaving the inside hollow. Most SP users love that stuff, even if you might hate it. Also, that FW-190 is an extremely detailed plane, the gauges alone consist of 100’s of parts. You do not need to do that, you can simply just spend around 10 parts per gauge and achieve a result not too dissimilar while looking much better from what you currently have. It’s also about how you use those parts, more parts doesn’t equal better. @vcharng

@SodiumChloride One known issue about my flight model is that some of my builds (especially my earlier SU1946 series) are actually too good in terms of performance. They are so good that its almost beyond human ability to properly control them.
This includes the fact that nearly all my earlier planes are not mobile friendly. I've been complained twice about not adding trims, and I plan to improve that in future builds ( that Ju288 can't have trim because trim input is occupied by the turret, this Focke-Wulf can't have trim because its horizontal stablizer is limited by the rods that goes all the way into the main wing, but I will handle that in my next build.

@CoolPeach "Proper cockpit" you mean the exterior or interior? The actual blueprint didn't have any other canopy frames; and if you want cockpit interior better then mine, you're looking at something like that 3500-part Fw 190 or that A6M8 SodiumCloride is making (I heard it has 4000 parts with just half the cockpit complete?)

@CoolPeach In the very beginning of the build I tried to make the intake section thicker but it looked even more stupid... I know the blueprint looks a bit like the cowling from air-cooled engines but It's hard to make one in SP's system.

As for the wingtip, that's the price I have to pay for 2-section wing building. I don't like the traditional 3 section wing building, it's inflating part counts and the upper surface is flat.

In regards to the cockpit, considering that somehow this build has 600+ parts, you could’ve have implemented part saving measures and actually have done a proper cockpit. @vcharng

Perhaps just that one section, although I would argue that it’s at least slightly tapered, all the other non smooth sections are issues, the wing tip is ugly, and the nose just doesn’t look right compared to the blueprints. @vcharng

@SodiumChloride I do upvote others once in a while.
And I thought "if you upvote me I upvote you", either explicitly or implicitly, is prohibited by official rules.